I would advocate for legal rights to use an adblocker! If we don’t, it’s going to be banned under CFAA in the future. Ads suck! Nobody has the right to force these on me!
The closer you are to a monopoly, the more required you should be to serve all. We don't allow the electric company to kill your power because you made disparaging emails or bad messages online.
And if you're a monopoly, you should be dealt with heavy handedly. Because power and money only further power and money. Anti-competition laws stem that to an extent.
There are plenty of music streaming services at the same level of quality and within the ballpark of paid subscriber base as Spotify. It wouldn’t qualify as a monopoly.
Music streaming isn’t the kind of good that falls under common carrier so I don’t think the analogy of the electric company fits. People can easily go through life not subscribed to one. I for one only have iTunes Match which isn’t the all-you-can-eat style of Spotify/Apple Music/Play Music/Amazon Music/Tidal/etc.
This seems intuitively correct. Neutrotisicm is associated with risk-averse behavior and thus less likely to engage in risky life-threatening activity. A highly neurotic personal can be paralyzed by enumeration of every conceivable outcome, and as such not ever do the dangerous thing. There seems to be a positive correlation of intelligence, so the individual may make long term conservative bets that further increase longevity.
Be careful: this post just reeks of confirmation bias. Correlation (association) does not imply causation and it’s tantalizingly attractive to want to draw conclusions that confirm the way we think about the world.
I, personally (for example), would not generally assume neuroticism is associated with risk-aversion. In my experience risk aversion (or tolerance) tends to be completely decoupled from other traits.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, and it would equally be a fallacy to believe my anecdotal experience is anything more than an anecdote, but just be careful jumping to conclusions.
The article is looking at genetic differences, not environmental ones. The small gender difference in neuroticism is actually overexplained by the difference in rates of childhood sexual assault alone, meaning that if anything females are genetically predisposed to be less neurotic.
> I, personally (for example), would not generally assume neuroticism is associated with risk-aversion. In my experience risk aversion (or tolerance) tends to be completely decoupled from other traits.
I wouldn't even say that risk aversion is a one-dimensional thing.
Anecdata: me and my SO have complementary risk tolerance patterns. She avoids financial/material risks but is happy to put herself in, let's say, interesting social situations, while I, conversely, am able to spend money to the point where I'm "running on fumes"(if I believe there's a good reason to do that), but avoid any situations where I would risk making somebody upset, even if they should be confronted.
A cursory search finds that neuroticism does seem to be correlated with risk aversion, which suggests that your claim of confirmation bias, and your admonition to be careful about jumping to conclusions, both based on your personal experience, are rather ironic.
Indeed I did - in fact, you might have noticed that I quoted part of it. The first and last sentences of your post admonish the person you are replying to for jumping to conclusions and falling for confirmation bias, yet the closest you get to stating your grounds for believing they have ignored contrary evidence is your own personal opinion about neuroticism. Confirmation bias, of course, is the selection of data that supports one's bias, but here you are not even attempting to offer data in support of your contrary bias. A valid claim of confirmation bias needs more support than the fact that you don't agree.
Somewhere an aboriginal Australian is sighing at you. A bunch of Israelis and Greeke are pretty annoyed too. China and India won’t be thrilled at your comment either.
I'm not sure if I can find a direct citation, but Penn & Teller have said that rubbing butts is more sanitary than shaking hands, and that they'd be happy for fans to greet them that way.
If you shake hands with an unsanitary person you can easily sanitise your hand. If you hug an unsanitary person you'll need a shower and a change of clothes.
Paypal doesn't serve many countries. Has high fees. Can arbitrarily lock you away from funds or freeze accounts. Censors Transactions. Banking law does not apply as they are a transmitter, not a bank. Many many reasons not to PayPal.
If you look into the reason for each of those constraints, you'll find that any cryptocurrency exchange will eventually have to face the same challenges.
I think it was Hector-Garcia Molina who used to talk about how NoSQL proponents were so excited about the scale benefits, but just hadn't yet realized that they need ACID, normalization, etc.. That's who cryptocurrency advocates remind me of. Just because some features are superior currently, doesn't mean those features are consistent with future, inevitable constraints.
On the other hand, Europe broadly has better ways to transfer money. For example, anyone with a mobile banking app can transfer money to anyone else who's registered their mobile number with their bank - even completely separate banks - near-instantly, with an hour's delay in extreme cases, in the UK. And I often hear that other countries have significantly better infrastructure than us.
Because something is happening. Large trades from Korean exchanges are driving very high prices worldwide. It means people are fearful of the existing financial system and are pouring their savings into "cryptocurrency".
